Introduction: From Crisis to Strategy, Tensions Growing in Quiet Waves
Current developments regarding the US’s Venezuela policy are not just a matter of a country’s change of government. The fine line between the use of force and legitimacy redefines the regional security architecture. The authoritarian tendencies of the Maduro administration and Venezuela’s fragile economic situation, combined with external pressures, significantly affect the country’s domestic and foreign policies. In this context, Washington’s approach is shaped not only through military threats, but also through economic pressures, political maneuvers and searches for international legitimacy. Movements that quickly turn into symbols of power do not create permanent authority, but risky security structures in the long term. This analysis covers the traces of the power and legitimacy conflict on the field, lessons from past experiences, and possible future scenarios.
Power and Legitimacy: The Journey from Theory to Practice
Power is the set of tools used to direct an actor towards goals. However, these tools are not sustainable without international legitimacy. The US stance towards Venezuela demonstrates this reality in practice: military visibility may have short-term impact, but international support and domestic capacity strengthening are essential for lasting authority. Experts argue that the balance between the use of force and legitimacy is fragile, and excessive pressure triggers resistance and diplomatic blockages. In the case of Venezuela, foreign pressures may not provide a sufficient basis for the transformation of domestic policies and this may turn into a long-term crisis.
Past Experiences: Lessons Learned from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya
Past US interventions have been limited to short-term goals rather than ensuring lasting stability. The years after 2001 in Afghanistan showed that the short-term security advantage gained over the Taliban could not turn into long-term political authority. Transformation efforts in Iraq have faced the fragility of state institutions and persistent security threats. In the case of Libya, uncoordinated operations accelerated the country’s civil war and division process. These examples clearly demonstrate that military interventions alone are not sufficient and show that deficiencies in legitimacy and institutional capacity cannot be compensated for by excessive force.
From Supremacy to Permanent Authority: Conflicting Goals and Strategies
US policies towards Venezuela should be analyzed along three main axes: targeted power indicators, the search for international legitimacy, and the re-establishment of local balances. The strategy should include calls for institutional reforms and comprehensive political dialogue, not just support for interim figures or interim governments like Delcy Rodríguez. Otherwise, although external pressures may provide short-term results, they may create local resistance and long-term authority vacuum. In this context, legitimacy in US policy choices and compliance with international norms offer a more durable balance than unilateral uses of force.
The Role and Limits of “Kinetic Diplomacy” in Transition Processes
The approach called „kinetic diplomacy” refers to using dominant means through the use of force to achieve rapid results. However, this strategy has limited impact in terms of institutional resilience and public safety in the long term. In the Venezuelan context, elements such as implicit threats and pressure for rapid change can only lead to a chaotic transition process. In this process, the common response configuration of the international community and the participation of local civil society play a decisive role. Trump’s statements and White House messages make clear the limits of this approach: targeted leadership changes are not sustainable without international legitimacy.
Understanding the Context: US Strategies in the Post-Cold War Era
In the post-Cold War era, US policies of pressure and intervention turned into a search for balance between long-term governance goals and short-term security pressures. In particular, differences emerged between medium-term security plans and interventions aimed at long-term power structures. The difference between budget balances, defense expenditures and diplomatic investments concretely demonstrates this transformation. The picture, in which defense expenditures are many times greater than diplomatic investments as of 2026, reveals that the power-oriented approach is not cost-free. In this process, it is essential to reflect on restructured international norms and institutional balances of power.
The Quest for Open and Transparent Political Authority: Regional Impacts and Global Reactions
The US’s behavior towards Venezuela triggers not only the relations between the two countries, but also its effects on the regional security architecture of North and South America and the global balance of power. Beijing and Moscow evaluate such interventions in the context of protecting their own interests and reframe the legitimacy debate in the international arena. As in the cases of Taiwan and Ukraine, the line between the use of force and sovereignty becomes a vital criterion for complying with international rules. Therefore, the US policy towards Venezuela should be considered as an actor that affects the balance of not only the Caribbean, but also the entire global geopolitical scene.
Conclusion: The Path from Power to Legitimacy, Consensus and Capacity Building
The use of force can create instant visibility; but legitimation struggles require institutional capacity strengthening and civil participation for long-term stability. The Venezuelan example shows that we have to clarify the link between domestic economic reforms and the strengthening of democratic institutions. No matter how harsh the doctrines, without international norms, inter-party dialogue and permanent reforms, temporary advantages will only produce short-lived results. Therefore, the US’s Venezuela policy should evolve into a path of transformation focused on legitimacy-based dialogues and local capacity building, rather than building legitimacy through force. Such an orientation will stand out as the safest and most sustainable strategy for regional stability.
